Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Image:Little Maid of Arcadee.ogg

Featured sound candidates/Image:Little Maid of Arcadee.ogg

This song is not generally available on commercial recordings, and very, very few amateur recordings exist in the first place. Hence, this provides a useful example of the lost opera that would otherwise be very difficult to find. Used in Thespis (opera) under Image:Little Maid of Arcadee (2-2).ogg - there was some confusion about the upload between the three of us who made it, so the commons version and the en-wiki are... well, someone can sort this out later

• Nominate and support. - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now—According to criterion 3, "The file is used in at least one article," An other file Image:Little Maid of Arcadee (2-2).ogg is used in th article Thespis (opera), but this file is not. Listen to both recordings and used the better one in the article and here. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 12:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment They're the same recording, just different conversions to ogg. Let's go with Image:Little Maid of Arcadee (2-2).ogg, as the volume's probably a bit better. I'll admit that the circumstances of this recording weren't ideal - the piano is a midi, for instance - but I think it's a good effort to bring something out that Wikipedia wouldn't have any other way. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose—The featured sound criterion 5 requires certain things to be listed in the Sound description page. I added what I could, but I could not find the following:

(iii)The venue of the recording.

(vi) For a musical performance, the name and years of the arranger, if relevant, the year of composition (and the arrangement, where relevant).

(vii) For a musical performance, links to a musical score in digital format where available.

Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• (iii) Privately recorded specifically for Wikipedia, no audience. Hence, irrelevant, and possibly an invasion of privacy. It was recorded by broadwaygal alone. Sorry, I have flu, I have to be blunt.
• (vi) Uncredited, very possibly Sullivan himself. The song's from 1871, and I believe the music came out in 1872.
• (vii) I found one at the Gilbert and Sullivan archive Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry - I wasn't very clear with vi - this is very definately by Gilbert and Sullivan, but I don't know who did the piano arrangement, and that is not credited. I clarified on the page.

• Comment: I would support this nomination, except that the singer sucks (I'm the singer). -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I somewhat agree with Ssilvers. I don't think it "sucks", but it isn't up to featured quality. To be featured, it should be a top notch performance. There are intonation problems with the singing, it is fairly un-dramatic, and the piano sounds weirdly electronic. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The piano IS electronic, actually. MIDI, you know =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Yes, I agree: intonation problems in the singing (not bad, but not good enough for featured content, and it's not a historical recording, to which lower performance standards might apply). Piano is a bit stodgy. TONY (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)